From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Tue Jan 04 2005 - 02:18:51 GMT
Platt --
This is what I call 'begging the question' for a universal morality. It is
also putting the horse behind the cart.
You said:
> Since Essence is indefinable other than to say it is the "source," how can
> anyone know what is contradictory to it?
You're demanding the goodies at the end of the rainbow without learning the
means to get you there. If you want the kind of morality I'm proposing, you
have to buy the whole package. (That includes an essentialistic
understanding of man's place in the universe.) Otherwise, you can enforce
it by law, which I guess would make man's behavior universal while
eliminating morality and destroying his freedom.
> I see you have a scale of moral values relative to your personal self-
> interest. But then you switch gears and proclaim a universal value--the
> sanctity of human life.
The sanctity of human life is an absolute principle, yes; but not because I
"proclaim" it so. .
>
> > However, I am an anthropocentrist. I
> > see the taking of a human life as the greatest evil because I believe
every
> > human being is (potentially at least) a center (locus or agent) of value
> > itself. It's his purpose in life; if we terminate man we destroy his
> > essence-value, which ultimately is an act against ourselves.
>
> I'm sure you recognize how close this comes to the Christian belief that
> we are made in the image of God and therefore shouldn't mess with God's
> creation.
Something like that, yes. There is much in the Judeo-Christian belief
system that supports moral behavior. Which is one reason I'm not an
anti-theist.
> But, suppose I and others don't subscribe to your belief in your universal
> "sanctity of man?" What then?
Then, it appears that neither of us will enjoy the morality we both want.
> Again a reflection of Christian belief, you know the old saying, " . . .
> endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights . . ." And, pardon
> me for pointing it out, but "freedom is essential to the autonomy of man"
> (which I happen to agree with) sounds suspiciously like a universal moral
> standard.
Well, if you agree with it, your belief system must be as "suspicious" as
mine.
> According to Pirsig's moral structure morality at the biological level is
> in a constant battle with morality of the inorganic level (life vs.death)
> and so on up the ladder of moral levels. So what you call "atrocities"
> occur as the result of the conflict between biological level morality
> (might makes right) and social level morality (freedom from physical
> coercion benefits all). As Pirsig points out, men consist of all moral
> levels, and more often than we'd like to admit, their biological,
> emotional impulses override social and intellectual values and they behave
> like jackals (and/or jackasses).
It would seem that Pirsig's moral structure isn't winning the battle,
either. The jackass prevails. Do you really think that universal
comprehension and acceptance of the MoQ would raise the level of morality in
the world?
> But, it's interesting that your statement is based on the premise that
> there is "right and wrong" which looks like a universal moral standard to
> me from my seat here in the balcony.
You're really stuck on that word "universal", aren't you? And you had me
thinking you were an individualist! Why don't you get down off the balcony
and tell me why you are so averse to moral relativism? Maybe we can cure
that phobia.
> What I meant to convey was that without universal moral
> standards, who is to say that anything is right or wrong, or if they do
> say it, why should we pay any attention?
I suppose there will still be a moral consensus, a.world court, and a civil
rights union, among other 'authorities' to rule on behavior, until man is
wise enough to realize his essential nature and accept personal
responsibility for his wrongdoings.
> As for man's role in the universe, I believe he is here to make the
> universe better than it was or would be without him, guided by the
> principle of rightness. By understanding the universe's moral structure,
> man is better able to accomplish that purpose.
I was about to ask, who is to tell us what is "better", until you mentioned
"the principle of rightness". What, exactly, is that? I must have missed
that principle in my reading of Pirsig.
Good luck with the universal structure! From what I've seen of that
structure lately, you'll need it.
Regards,
Ham
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 04 2005 - 02:27:38 GMT